Work environments and staff responses to work environments in institutional long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Structures and processes of care such as work environments and care provider responses to work environments have been shown to influence organizational outcomes. To improve health care quality, structures, processes, and outcomes of care should be considered. There is almost no literature reporting on the structural characteristics of work environments and care provider responses to work environments in institutional long-term (chronic) care settings. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to report how a convenience sample of multidisciplinary care providers working in institutional long-term (chronic) care settings in Ontario, Canada, evaluated their work environments and their responses to these environments. METHODOLOGY: A sample of multidisciplinary care providers working within six institutional long-term care settings completed a survey rating their work environments (e.g., supervisor support and effectiveness and work empowerment) and responses to work environments (e.g., job satisfaction, burnout, and intention to remain employed). The survey included three well-established instruments: Supervisory Support Scale; Learn, Empower, Achieve, and Produce instrument; and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey data. To determine whether there were differences in staff characteristics, ratings of work environments, and responses to work environments across the four participant job categories, tests of differences were completed using analyses of variance with Tukey post hoc (continuous variables) and chi-square (categorical variables) tests. FINDINGS: Ratings of the work environment were similar across job categories and indicated opportunities for improvement. Overall job satisfaction was rated between "neutral" and "satisfied." On average, the staff reported moderate levels of emotional exhaustion (burnout). More than one third of all staff members reported planning to leave their employment, including two thirds of allied health professionals. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies are suggested to strengthen institutional long-term care work environments to promote more positive staff responses to work environments, including higher job satisfaction and intention to remain employed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".